Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Haldia Refinery Canteen Emps. Union & ... vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & ... on 29 April, 2005
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in response has once again reiterated his submission that all
the attendant facts which have been brought on record in the instant
case show that the petitioners are the employees under the
management of CTPS under the DVC. Therefore, they should not be
denied the benefits of equal pay as being given to other employees in
GradeD. Learned counsel for the petitioners' also once again reiterated
that the evidence of the provident fund deductions and the exercise of
disciplinary control over them as also payment of bonus, wages and
8.
maintenance of attendance register etc show that these employees are
the workmen of the management of CTPS under DVC. The judgment
relied by the petitioners in the case of Haldia Refinery Canteen
Employees Union Vs, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (2005)
5 S.C.C. 51 is, therefore, distinguishable in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Kgsd Canteen Employees Welfare ... on 3 January, 2006
18. This view is also supported by the judgment relied upon
by the respondents rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Karnataka Vs. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare
Association, reported in (2006) 1 S.C.C. 567 at para 32, 43, 45 and 49 of
the said judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the
question of status of employees of the canteen workers in the said
judgment dealt at para 32 came to the conclusion that the industrial
adjudicator was required to apply the relevant case law laid down by
the Apex Court to come to a conclusion relating to the status of the
canteen workers. Further, on the question of maintainability of a writ
petition where questions of fact were disputed by either party as in the
present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment after
discussing the case law had at para 43 opined that in such
circumstances the recourse to the writ remedy was not apposite. Even
on the question of regularisation, the judgment referred to supra
proceeds to hold that the High Court in exercise of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not empowered to either frame any such
scheme or direct the authorities to frame such a scheme to regularize
the services of adhoc employees or daily wage employees who had not
been appointed in terms of the rules framed under statute or under the
13.
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors. ... vs National Union Water Front Workers & Ors on 30 August, 2001
16. In the background of the statutory framework provided
under the Act of 1970, the role of the competent authority/appropriate
Government is to arrive at a decision through proper procedure under
the Act of 1970 in the matter of issuance of prohibition notification
11.
under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1970. The Joint Labour Commissioner
may have found that the question no longer was relevant for
determination as the contractor had stopped doing the work for
running the canteen. However, the Joint Labour Commissioner acting
as an appropriate authority under the Act of 1970 would not have acted
as an industrial adjudicator to direct regularisation of the services of
the petitioners. This role was squarely within the domain of
adjudicating body where either a reference seeking regularisation could
have been made at the instance of the aggrieved workmen or if a
prohibition notification was issued under Section 10(1) of the Act of
1970, then also the petitioners were required to seek a reference before
the industrial adjudicator to determine the question whether the work
itself was carried out through a contractor by the principal employer as
a camouflage or a ruse. The Labour Court in such an event was required
to determine the questions of fact as has been mandated by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority
of India Limited Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, reported in
(2001) 7 S.C.C. 1. In either case, the Joint Labour Commissioner did not
have the jurisdiction to direct regularisation of these petitioners in the
management of CTPS.
1